Carrots and sticks in REDD+ implementation: Implications for social safeguards

Amy E. Duchelle, Claudio de Sassi, Pamela Jagger, Marina Cromberg, Anne M. Larson, William D. Sunderlin, Stibniati S. Atmadja, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, Christy Desta Pratama

a.duchelle@cgiar.org

THINKING beyond the canopy

Emergence of subnational REDD+ initiatives

Since 2007, hundreds of subnational REDD+ initiatives have emerged in the tropics

On-the-ground evidence for how local people could benefit or lose from REDD+, particularly in relation to respect for local rights, participation and enhancement of livelihoods =>

UNFCCC Cancun Safeguards

THINKING beyond the canopy

UNFCCC Cancun SafeguardsWhen undertaking REDD+ activities, the following safeguards should be promoted and supported:a) Complement or consistent with the objectives of national forest

programmes and relevant international conventions and agreementsb) Transparent and effective national forest governance structures c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and

members of local communitiesd) Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholderse) Consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological

diversity • not used for conversion of natural forests• protection and conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem

services • enhance other social and environmental benefits

f) Address the risks of reversalsg) Reduce displacement of emissions

THINKING beyond the canopy

REDD+ as mix of interventions

Regulatory and incentive-based mechanisms with primary aim of reducing forest-based emissions

How do different intervention strategies affect local tenure security, participation, subjective well-being, and forest clearing?

THINKING beyond the canopy

Subnational REDD+ Initiatives in GCS

Comparison (Control)

REDD+ site(Intervention)

Before After

IMPACT

InterventionAfter

ControlAfter

InterventionBefore

ControlBefore

2010 / 2011 2013 / 2014

• 6 countries• 23 initiatives• 150 villages• 4,000

households

THINKING beyond the canopy

Interventions at GCS sites

PeruBrazil

Tanzania

Cameroon

Indonesia

Vietnam0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

In-cen-tivesBoth

Hous

ehol

ds ta

rget

ed (n

=2,0

07)

THINKING beyond the canopy

Participation in local REDD+ initiatives

Villages (n=87) Women (n=87) Households (n=2120)0

102030405060708090

Knowledge (Phase 2) Participation (Phase 2)

% re

spon

dent

s

THINKING beyond the canopy

Changes in tenure security and subjective well-being

• Decrease in tenure security and overall perceived well-being over time for households exposed to regulations alone

• Addition of incentives into the mix helped alleviate negative effects on well-being

THINKING beyond the canopy

Perceived effects of specific interventions on household wellbeing

Regulations

Both

Incentives

BR CM ID PE TZ VN

5=very positive

1=very negative

THINKING beyond the canopy

Reported forest clearing

In Brazil, notable distribution bias with households clearing more forests (in phase 1) subjected to regulations; clearing significantly less forest (in phase 2) than other groups

THINKING beyond the canopy

Concluding remarks Regulations driving the patterns observed, yet incentives

important in helping alleviate burdens

Trade-off between effectiveness of regulations and effects on well-being (Brazil); unanticipated positive effects of regulations on well-being (Tanzania, Indonesia)

Inherent tensions between carbon and non-carbon goals in REDD+ - who decides what level of trade-offs is acceptable?

Social safeguards monitoring relies on leveraging and improving on ongoing data collection efforts; and being grounded in local perceptions and processes

Financial support for GCS-REDD+:Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Australian Agency for International Development,

European Commission, UK Department for International Development,

German International Climate Initiative,CGIAR Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) Programme.

www.cifor.org/gcs

www.cifor.org/gcs